CaliforniaGlowin

Opinion: Too many teams with red and blue

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Missing the point... the Chiefs, Redskins, Packers, and Steelers all wear the same gold, but that chart has them in different places.

Not to mention, it spells Pittsburgh wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a team should do what's best for them regardless of what the rest of the league looks like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill81361 said:

What am I missing about this chart?  Official team colors?  Every team has a white road jersey, so it's used if "unofficially" by 4 teams.

Probably just the somewhat random decision by those teams to not list white as a team color. Washington lists it, but the Niners, Packers, and Chiefs don't... I'd say those teams all use white similarly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

Probably just the somewhat random decision by those teams to not list white as a team color. Washington lists it, but the Niners, Packers, and Chiefs don't... I'd say those teams all use white similarly.

White is a requirement of the league for the primary color of the road jersey. If white isn't found anywhere else, then white isn't a color. If you have white pants, stripes, panels, numbers, etc then you have white as a color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

White is a requirement of the league for the primary color of the road jersey. If white isn't found anywhere else, then white isn't a color. If you have white pants, stripes, panels, numbers, etc then you have white as a color.

White isn't a requirement for your helmet logo, though. The Raiders, Packers, Chiefs and 49ers all use plenty of white in their helmet logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, msu said:

White isn't a requirement for your helmet logo, though. The Raiders, Packers, Chiefs and 49ers all use plenty of white in their helmet logo.

And the Steelers don't consider blue or red as their colors, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

And the Steelers don't consider blue or red as their colors, either.

That's a fair point, but the Packers and 49ers also have white helmet stripes so at the very least those should be considered teams that use white in their uniforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McGlinchey23 said:

I think a team should do what's best for them regardless of what the rest of the league looks like.

Agree.  And in MLB, that probably means a lot of teams keeping long-used colors.  For some teams it could be trying to distinguish themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

And the Steelers don't consider blue or red as their colors, either.

True but I’m having a hard time seeing how white is a color for the Lions and not the Packers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I’ve long proposed a way for MLB to diversify (for some teams):

 

Red Sox: Forest Green/Red (simple color swap, no red caps after Bucky Dent killed them)

 

Cleveland: Navy/Light Blue, Maroon/Orange, etc.

 

Twins: Forest Green/Light Blue

 

Rangers: Brick Red/Slate Blue

 

Braves: Black/Red

 

Phillies: Maroon/Light Blue accents

 

Royals: Purple/Yellow

 

Of course, a lot of these identities are too set in stone now to really change. The rest of the majors should have followed Charlie O’s example in the 1960s. If navy/red can’t go, color distribution, accent colors, and fonts will work well enough.


I think the color swap you proposed for the Red Sox can also work for the Twins, only with purple replacing navy.

As for the Royals, adding powder blue to their palette would separate them enough from other teams.

The Braves briefly used a red, yellow and black combo when they were still in Boston.  I wouldn't mind seeing them going full circle to embrace that.

Cleveland could easily adopt the colors of one of the other teams in town.  They're not that far off from the Cavs as it is, and if the Padres won't do brown and orange, why not Cleveland?

100% on board with the Phils here.

The Rangers are a tough one, since there's logic to them being a RWB team.  I can't think of too many symbols of the DFW area (Texas flag, Mobil Oil, SMU)  that don't lend themselves to that scheme.  Maybe Maroon and Burnt Orange might work if A&M and UT alums don't shriek blasphemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2018 at 12:16 PM, Sykotyk said:

White is a requirement of the league for the primary color of the road jersey. If white isn't found anywhere else, then white isn't a color. If you have white pants, stripes, panels, numbers, etc then you have white as a color.

The Redskins ditched white pants after the 2012 season.http://www.gridiron-uniforms.com/GUD/redskins.shtml   SF has more white stripes on their jersey sleeves than Washington and both use white numbers on their home jersey (along with the Packers and Chiefs and most, but not all, NFL teams).  Be that as it may, I agree with the earlier post that it's the team's discretion what they list.  

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2018 at 1:19 PM, OnWis97 said:

True but I’m having a hard time seeing how white is a color for the Lions and not the Packers.

It also says the Patriots, who have a silver helmet and pants, and silver on their primary logo, don't have silver in their scheme.

 

This chart needs some serious work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2018 at 10:46 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

colors_mlb.jpg

 

 

 

The Cardinals should switched to red/black decades ago. Braves could've easily switched to black/red at some point after moving to Atlanta. Would've made a nice connection with the Falcons. The Indians could've easily tried different colors during any of their redesigns. 

 

Related image

 

 

The Indians could've easily tried different colors during any of their redesigns. These would've went a long way breaking up these boring, lazy (I'm sorry, "traditional") colors. The three royal blue and red teams are fine, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MLB

 

Red Sox - Fine as is.

Indians - Their overall identity right now is a complete mess aesthetically. I wouldn't mind the addition of cream as it can be used with feather imagery if that so happened to be added. As long as they don't make themselves primarily red though; the Reds are already Ohio's red team.

Twins - Fine as is, but I wouldn't mind the usage of gold if it's used properly.

Angels - I don't even know if I could consider them a red and blue team since they fail to acknowledge the navy in their color scheme.

Rangers - Fine as is.

Braves - Fine as is.

Phillies - I'd be fine with red and blue or maroon (and I guess powder blue).

Nationals - Fine as is.

Cardinals - Fine as is, though like the Twins, the addition of yellow would be okay as a secondary-like color. Their own farm club does it pretty well.

 

The rest of the leagues are fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, daveindc said:

 


The Cardinals should switched to red/black decades ago.

 

Sure, but they've won a bunch of titles with navy in their color scheme, and most of them have come with navy as a dominant color in part of their identity. Navy is almost as important to their aesthetics and history as red. 

 

Quote

Braves could've easily switched to black/red at some point after moving to Atlanta. Would've made a nice connection with the Falcons.

 

Related image

 

 

 

 

I'll give you that one, due to the history of black within the identity and their navy almost looking black in vintage photographs. It wouldn't make sense to change now (especially seeing the team "white flight" away from Atlanta proper - where the black/red Falcons and Hawks play - to the suburbs), but it would've worked in 1966.

 

Quote

The Indians could've easily tried different colors during any of their redesigns. These would've went a long way breaking up these boring, lazy (I'm sorry, "traditional") colors. The three royal blue and red teams are fine, imo.

 

Cue @crashcarson15 doing his whole rant about how the Indians have had navy since the 1900s and red since the 1930s. They could have switched things up during their redesigns throughout the "dark times" of 1955-early '90s, but it didn't happen. Now, the team has had to play it safe with what they do change in their identity, trying to tone down/remove Wahoo while alienating as few people as possible.

 

Accusing navy/red of being boring/lazy is a bit of a step too far. It's more that the teams were concerned with preserving their traditional color schemes way back when, sticking with them to the point that they're integral to the fans' identity. I would object to new teams adopting navy/red, but the teams that have navy/red already should simply take little steps to differentiate themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2018 at 10:50 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

Last one...

 

(sorry, I'm kind of obsessed with these charts and graphs.)

 

NCAAcolors1.jpg

No need to apologize; I find 'em interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I'll give you that one, due to the history of black within the identity and their navy almost looking black in vintage photographs. It wouldn't make sense to change now (especially seeing the team "white flight" away from Atlanta proper - where the black/red Falcons and Hawks play - to the suburbs), but it would've worked in 1966.

 

I don't think it makes any difference whether the stadiums sit in the city or the suburbs. They're all Atlanta's teams. The new stadium for the Braves might be in a more "convenient" spot for the average Atlanta baseball fan, but better believe those same fans are supporting the Falcons and Hawks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, daveindc said:

 

I don't think it makes any difference whether the stadiums sit in the city or the suburbs. They're all Atlanta's teams. The new stadium for the Braves might be in a more "convenient" spot for the average Atlanta baseball fan, but better believe those same fans are supporting the Falcons and Hawks.


Realistically, it depends on the locale.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have a Brooklyn Dodgers team that would have chosen to move to the other coast rather than one borough over to Queens.

In Atlanta's case, the ITP-OTP rivalry is real, and the Braves decision to move outside of the perimeter made a statement whether they wanted to or not.  Knowing what I do about Georgia, having lived there for a bit, it's very likely the people attending Braves games in their new stadium aren't Falcons or Hawks fans.  It's more likely that they follow the Bulldogs, if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dolphins Dynasty said:

MLB

Indians - Their overall identity right now is a complete mess aesthetically. I wouldn't mind the addition of cream as it can be used with feather imagery if that so happened to be added. As long as they don't make themselves primarily red though; the Reds are already Ohio's red team.

The biggest issue is refusing to establish a primary logo to replace Wahoo that can stand out. In 1994 they had their strongest look with the cursive Indians and Cleveland scripts. Then they changed the aways completely and took the piping off the homes. Following that up with the Block C that could be used for any team with C in the name and you have a horrible look that will get even worse next year unless they completely change their uniforms to fit around that Block C or a new logo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's every MLB team color I would change:

Royals - More Gold

Indians - With them getting rid of the Indian logo, I'd probably change the name and color scheme at this point but idk what to

Braves - Just darken the shade of blue like their alternates

Phillies - Maroon and White, no Powder Blue

Padres - Brown and Yellow, no Orange

Rays - Go back to Dark Green and devil ray mascot, but keep the name Rays

Marlins - Dolphins color scheme, or at least make the Dolphins Orange the main color

Brewers - Darken the Gold, like the Saints color rush jerseys

Reds - No more Black

Diamondbacks - Back to Purple and Green

 

If Montreal gets the Expos back they'll be Red and Blue. If Portland gets a team I hope they go with Green and dark gold, like the Timbers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now